CAP (a child) v Jeffers - [2010] WASC 235

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CAP (a child) -v- JEFFERS [2010] WASC 235

CORAM: BLAXELL J

HEARD: 13 MAY 2010

DELIVERED : 31 AUGUST 2010

FILE NO/S: SJA 1141 of 2009

BETWEEN: CAP (a child)
Appellant
AND
RICHARD MICHAEL JEFFERS
STEPHEN JOHN FLANAGAN
Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  CHILDREN'S COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE P HOGAN
File No  :AL 369 of 2009, AL 370 of 2009, AL 371 of 2009, AL 372 of 2009, AL 373 of 2009, AL 374 of 2009, PE 2065 of 2009, PE 5466 of 2009, PE 5467 of 2009, PE 5468 of 2009, PE 5469 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Sentence - Young offender - 14-year-old boy with no previous record - six aggravated burglaries, one aggravated armed robbery, three attempted aggravated armed robberies and one stealing of motor vehicle - Sentences totalling 12 months' detention - Whether sentences manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Young Offenders Act 1994 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 8, s 46, s 118, s 120

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr M R Jones
Respondents : Mr J Newton-Palmer

Solicitors:

Appellant: Ian Hope
Respondents : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

AM (a child) v The Queen (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 960263, 15 May 1996)
B (a child) (1995) 82 A Crim R 234
Chan (1989) 39 A Crim R 337
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, 505
JA (a child) v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 70
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665

BLAXELL J: On 12 November 2009 the appellant appeared in the Perth Children's Court and was sentenced to a total of 12 months' detention for ten offences including a number of aggravated burglaries and an aggravated armed robbery. The appellant committed the first of those offences in March 2009 when he was 13 years old, and the remaining offences in September 2009 when he was 14 years old. He had no previous record of offending.
The appellant appeals from the sentences on the basis that they were manifestly excessive. In this regard, his essential contention is that the sentencing magistrate placed too much weight on the need for general deterrence, and not enough weight on the prospects for his reformation and rehabilitation.
It is an unfortunate fact that by the time the present appeal was heard, the appellant had already served the 6‑ month custodial component of his sentence and been released under a supervised release order. Accordingly, the outcome of this appeal is completely academic from his point of view. The potential for injustice that arises from these circumstances could have been easily avoided if the appellant's solicitor had given early consideration to any of the following steps:
•An application to the President of the Children's Court for a rehearing of the matter under s 28 of the Children's Court of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CAP (a child) v Jeffers

Details

AGLC: CAP (a child) v Jeffers [2010] WASC 235
Case: [2010] WASC 235
Decision Date: 31 AUGUST 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal involved a 14-year-old boy, referred to as CAP, who was sentenced to a total of 12 months' detention for various offences. CAP had no prior criminal record and was convicted of six counts of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated armed robbery, three counts of attempted aggravated armed robbery, and one count of stealing a motor vehicle. The Crown Court had sentenced CAP to detention, which was subsequently appealed by the defendant on the basis that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The primary issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the Crown Court was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the nature of the offences committed by CAP and considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders. It noted that while the offences were serious and involved multiple victims, CAP's age, lack of a prior criminal record, and potential for rehabilitation were mitigating factors. The court also considered the cumulative effect of the sentences, which totalled 12 months' detention, and whether this was disproportionate to the gravity of the offences. The court held that the Crown Court had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offences against the mitigating factors and had exercised its discretion within the permissible bounds. Consequently, the court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the sentences imposed by the Crown Court. It found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offences, CAP's age, lack of a prior criminal record, and the potential for rehabilitation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences remained in place.

Orders